This is not at all what I thought teams would be about when I first saw the topic, although it was apparent where it was going after reading earlier blogs.

I’m not sure what to think. How do players incorporate these sorts of variables into their spread sheets? Will it really add something worthwhile to the dynamic of the game? I imagine teams with benefit for high volume, high margin type objects would be carefully targeted by larger scale industrialists who work out exactly at what pricing point they are worthwhile, and when they are not. The more casual player won’t think much about them, or might grab the teams no one else cares for – for amusement value more than anything else.

Industry has gone from more simple, easier to access after the first couple Dev blogs, to more random and harder to fathom by the end of the six. It is going to take a lot of forum reading to understand how these changes will really impact things.

The views seems to be that with the removal of industry slots, people will pull down large research POS towers and replace them with small ones, lowering isotope fuel usage. By increase the use of fuel for jump drives CCP hope to balance any price hit on the isotope markets.

Funny – I was thinking there would actually be a whole heap of new POS being fueled. Yes – they would be small towers, but they would be anchored by all those people without standings or keen on industry, and will also cover all those systems previously out of bounds. I’d have put money on the fact isotope costs would actually increase.

I agree with the sentiment from many who posted in the first few pages of the thread – this sort of change hits the individual and small groups far more than the big name alliances. It seems a hurried and unnecessary nerf.

There is a new character selection screen, which is nice, but kind of clashes with the launcher colours.

If you haven’t recently, it is worth doing a show info on the ship you are sitting in. That whole interface has really improved over time. (The most recent updates are in the traits section, which I didn’t actually bother showing)

(The mastery tab though often seems to get it icon highlighting wrong.)

The addition of icons in multi-item contracts is nice:

I presume there was more backend work than was immediately apparent. The patch notes don’t sound like “250MB”.

It seems a logical change that should be more accessible and easier to understand. If you understand the current skill training structure, you should understand how the ME and TE research works. My thoughts:

. Casual BPO ownership should be easier to get into

. There should be more, and cheaper BPC available on contract

. This quote is worth flagging – “Everything is on the table in terms of finding a reasonable solution that meets everyone’s legitimate concerns, so please approach the feedback in terms of telling us what you’d like to see rather than simply expressing frustration with the changes as described here. We’re not done with this yet!” I have seen a number of such statements from CCP over the last week. It is suggesting that the core of these Industrial changes are not meant to be confrontational. That is important.

. It will be interesting to see how the transition works from the granular old BPO researched levels to the new rigid 10 rank system. I have some 700+ researched T1 BPO, most with carefully selected ME levels that maximise benefits from the minimal amount of research time. If your current ME is 95% effective, will the blueprint end up with a rank 9 or 10 in the new system?

. I can see a large and long flood of BPO research being done after the changes as people mindlessly research everything to rank 10. Depending on how the new scaling cost system works, this will likely have a heavier impact on the more casual players out there. Corporations with the resources to run and share a research POS will have an advantage.

. Casual manufacturers might have more competition generally. If CCP get the design right, this will continue into the future.

. There will likely be some nasty exceptions – probably around T2 items and those with special manufacturing rules. CCP seem to be very amenable to addressing these if they are constructively highlighted.

As far as I could see there was nothing too contentious – although they remarked that in future they would look at Certificates for Industry, which might require skill changes to allow them to build a logical certificate hierarchy.

They are introducing a large number of new icons to the interface – so I presume they will all have tooltips. It does however show promise.

Separately I’ve also updated the about page for the blog, full of answers to questions people generally don’t ask.

I went through the process of using the ship skin BPC’s I’d purchased through the NEX store.

Submitting 20 odd jobs in quick succession was a painful reminder of why the whole manufacturing process needs an overhaul. I have no idea what I am going to do with the ship hulls. The things I do to show some support towards CCP’s ideas…

Can’t say it was their best work. Only a couple bits of interest. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there will be half a dozen odd new hulls in the next expansion. The mock-up Industry interface will be used for manufacturing, science, invention and reverse engineering. The first two will make it into the expansion, the last two will come in point releases. I got the impression CCP was a little taken aback by the backlash on the first two Industry update blogs. They suggested the remaining industry Dev blogs should be available before Fanfest, and that they were keen on feedback.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to evehermit.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, evehermit.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.